In the "Are you a Zoghbyist?" thread, our brother Slavipodvizhnik (Alexandr) made a reference to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, to which Theophan (BOB) replied:

I don't know much about Teilhard de Chardin's writings, but I understand that he saw creation as evolving towards an "omega point," at which time St. Paul's prophecy of all things being restored in Christ will be fulfilled--except that what he understood by "Christ" was apparently very different from the Church's understanding.

If I'm not mistaken, he understood the Incarnation to be God in the flesh, but not as exclusively that of Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Mary. Rather, for Teilhard, all matter is evolving into the "body of Christ," with the appearance of Jesus being nothing more than a key event in this process.

Perhaps there is more to his thought than this, but based on this information it hardly seems worth a second look.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Cardinal Schonborn (_Chance or Purpose: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith_, 2007) on Teilhard:

“Is there some way of looking at both the evolutionary view of the world and Christian faith at the same time? We have to mention here Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whose controversial work has for quite a while been intellectually and spiritually fascinating. He died in New York on Easter day, 1955."

“[Teilhard’s’] unity of vision, in which he intended to unite natural science and Christian faith, was of course also problematical. Critics have shown that he could not do complete justice to both sides.”

“Despite the criticisms from both sides, many people have come to feel his concerns and have valued them….His love for Christ made him into a kind of “mystic of evolution”….[It] is important [for our purposes] that Teilhard de Chardin dared a venture that was at the same time full of risks and yet necessary….It is true that faith and science should be distinguished from each other. Yet it is also true that they ought not to be separated.”


The major problem with Teilhard was that Teilhard's theo-evolutionary model saw death as an inherent part of evolution towards the Omega Point, implying that God planned for death to happen -- instead of death being the result of Mankind's original sin. Teilhard's model thus seemed to undermine the Christian idea of original sin.

Teilhard, though, did not reject original sin. In _Christianity and Evolution_, he wrote:

“Taken in the widest and most fundamental sense of the word, death (that is, disintegration) begins in truth to become apparent as early as the atom….[being] built into the very physico-chemical nature of matter….If there is an original sin in the world, it can only be and have been everywhere in it and always….”

Whether Teilhard's supposition that original sin being "everywhere" and "always" is compatible with Christianity, is for theologians to debate.

Siddhazen,

First of all, thanks for sharing this.

I suppose there will be theologians who wish to debate this issue of whether Teilhard's proposition that Original Sin "can only be and have been everywhere in [the world] and always," is compatible with Christianity.

However, how does one make such a statement and escape the obvious conclusion that this necessarily predicates Original Sin (and all subsequent sins) of God and God alone. In other words, it makes God the only guilty party in the universe. (Unless, of course, we do away completely with the concept of "guilt.")

I guess that explains why Teilhard has enjoyed such popularity!?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Teilhard! What a blast from the past. Talk about retro. His notions keep on coming back - just like a bad rash.

Chardin was not only a poor theologian (he displayed, in addition to what is noted on this thread, a tendency toward pantheism-and I am quite sure that Humani Generis was aimed at him), but he was also a fake as a scientist. He was involved in the "Piltdown Man" fraud. He is one of the reasons that I am leery of Jesuits.

Another possibility is that Adam and Eve committed Original Sin at the beginning of the evolution of the world. Perhaps evolution, as we know it scientifically, begins after the events in the Garden.

sielos:

Christ is in our midst!!

Just picked up this thread again. When I picked myself up off the floor (from my ROFLOL), I thought I'd write and tell you you picked me up this morning with your poetic sense of humor.

Bob

well thanks - at least I'm good for a laugh or 2! LOL altho I do admit I wonder what it'd be like to arrive at the Omega Point...think it'd be anything like landing on the planet where one of the Mormon gods lives with his wife Mrs. God? that planet is called "Kolob" in case you've never heard of it...

Oh, brother!! (Sigh) Am I in the Twilight Zone? The other day I listened to a Catholic tell me about the way God has of reincarnating us time after time until we "get it right." And I didn't know whether to laugh, to try to explain to him that that is not a Catholic or Christian teaching, to cry, or just to walk away wondering. I just walked away wondering because I didn't ahve the time or the strength to even begin. Many in my parish have moved to New Age explanations and these seem to be just as weird. We're supposed to be channelling "higher beings" for our spiritual growth. It's like being in the novel "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

Bob

Not only do people need food, and shelter but they/we also have spiritual needs which Orthodoxy/Catholicism can fulfill. A lot of folks are unaware of that; they feel spiritually hungry and unfortunately often go after what I'd call spiritual junk food...just as when you're hungry you can fill up on doughnuts, ice cream and candy - but you won't get much nourishment out of such a diet -so too it happens that, disconnected from our roots, we Catholics/Orthodox can go to the pig-slop trough of all kinds of worthless, erroneous ersatz doctrines...if that's where we eat we'll be full but it will do us more harm than good.

God save me from prelest.

That would be the same as saying that Adam and Eve came before the first atom! It is generally accepted as axiomatic that man is at the apex of the evolutionary scale--this hypothesis would put him at the bottom.

HOWEVER, there is an interesting thought here, we just need to remember that WE DON'T KNOW what nature was like before the fall. Thus, if we accept the premise that all of creation was in some way affected by the fall of man, it would be possible that this effect went even to the atomic level.

Which is not the same as saying that original sin was in creation "always and everywhere."


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Wonder if this verbiage has something to do with the RDL formulation at the elevation of the Gifts?

I see no objection to that idea.